Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

The view of awase with the train example still doesn't equal Ueshiba's aiki.

The very idea that it did is something you set up as a strawman argument.

You said awase was not what Osensei used against Tenryu and that it was actually Aiki. This is a strawman because Alexander sensei never said that Tenryu was overcome by awase. You made that up as an example of what he was saying.

The question of whether awase equals Aiki was mentioned by Chris Li and you quickly made that the new head for your strawman and now even Dan is adding stuffing to it:

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

How did he stop Tenryu? By fitting in with him?

Then after repeating yourself a number of times (thanks for answering me by the way ) you said

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Then that tells me that how he is defining awase is not the definition of Ueshiba's aiki. It tells me... etc... etc

AWASE does not equal AIKI. Stop making out that Alexander Sensei wrote that. He didn't. He actually called it a principle of AIKI in the title and content of the thread you quoted from.

Let's put down the strawman and do some research into what he actually meant by awase.

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Or you can just keep posting that I don't know what I'm talking about without anything to support it.

Isn't that what you and Dan are doing with many people on this forum?

Quote:

Christopher Li wrote:

Some of us have been discussing this over the internet for 15 years and more. If nobody talked about their beliefs/knowledge it would have been a much shorter and less fruitful conversation.

I, for one, am more than happy that Dan spent years shoving this stuff in my face.

Sharing knowledge and beliefs is great, but the discussing part is important. It involves supporting assertions, not just shoving them in people's faces. I can imagine Dan has one of many valuable pre-aikido models at least, almost certainly more effective than the mass-produced model that got the brand-name, but so do a lot of people.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

The classic model was aiki as a union of opposites-BEFORE- awase. It is in my tag line from Shirata -yet another giant.
1. Place the immovable body (there is that nagging Ueshiba example again eh?)
2. Into an an invincible position (awase)

This sounds like aikido to me but I think the use of the term awase is different (not wrong though -- it's a broad term).

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

The research has to take place on your part. Of course there is a vetting process that needs to be undertaken by those in doubt. I suggest it take place both academically and physically.

So you have a book called "Takemusu Aiki" you keep referring to in which Osensei defines his art, saying it was born in Iwama. He dictated the book while living in Iwama. David Alexander spent a considerable length of time in Iwama, beginning a few years after Osensei passed away and wrote an article mentioning a concept he learned from the old sempai who trained with Osensei there for ten or twenty years or more. I'm not saying time-served gave them the goods, they just had long windows of opportunity, which is still important. And you allow that information to get branded "modern aikido" without any evidence. Are you assuming a (possibly willful) zero-percent success rate from Osensei in passing on the proper training? You tell others that it is they who have to do research. Why not ask the remaining old sempai yourself, while they're still around?

Bear in mind, the conclusion could be that Aikido was not "born" but rather "stillborn" in Iwama: Perhaps Ueshiba changed the model for the worse? You could be the one to prove it. Maybe Ueshiba was just a Daito-Drone, capable of doing but not reproducing in his students. Maybe Dan is the Man who steps in and fixes things. We can only know by comparing notes honestly. Just lecturing and assuming no one else knows anything is not helpful.

You said awase was not what Osensei used against Tenryu and that it was actually Aiki. This is a strawman because Alexander sensei never said that Tenryu was overcome by awase. You made that up as an example of what he was saying.

AWASE does not equal AIKI. Stop making out that Alexander Sensei wrote that. He didn't. He actually called it a principle of AIKI in the title and content of the thread you quoted from.

Let's put down the strawman and do some research into what he actually meant by awase.

No strawman here.

Let me clarify a bit since I now understand where the confusion exists. So, David Alexander stated, "In AIKIDO this is AWASE, which can also be called the principle of AIKI." Notice he used "the", not "a". In fact, the title of his thread also uses "the" not "a".

Now, I took that as being awase is also aiki. As in, awase aka the principle of aiki. I did not take it as awase was "one" of many of the principles that made up aiki, ie "a" principle of aiki.

However, either way you look at it, it still isn't correct. The definition of awase given by David Alexander is not equivalent to Ueshiba's aiki. As I said in this thread, Ueshiba stopped Tenryu using the secret of aiki, not awase.

Even if you try to look at awase as one of the principles that make up aiki, it still isn't correct. All through Ueshiba's discourses, there are mentions of what made up aiki and awase was not one of them. Unless you can point to the research where Ueshiba talked about aiki being comprised of awase? I haven't seen it.

Quote:

Carl Thompson wrote:

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Or you can just keep posting that I don't know what I'm talking about without anything to support it.

Isn't that what you and Dan are doing with many people on this forum?

No.

Please point to those people in this thread who have posted as extensive research as I have here on Aikiweb (Me) Please point to those people who have trained with hundreds of aikido yudansha, 4th dan to shihan, and been tested in person for validation (Dan). Please point to those who have gone out and attended seminars of Harden, Sigman, Akuzawa, Chin, Chengde, Ikeda, Ushiro, etc. (Hundreds to thousands) Can you point to anyone on this thread who has done any of these things - that's on your side? Anyone on Aikiweb?

We have support in both research and hands on experience on both sides (what I call Modern Aikido and those people teaching IP/aiki).

Quote:

Carl Thompson wrote:

So you have a book called "Takemusu Aiki" you keep referring to in which Osensei defines his art, saying it was born in Iwama. He dictated the book while living in Iwama. David Alexander spent a considerable length of time in Iwama, beginning a few years after Osensei passed away and wrote an article mentioning a concept he learned from the old sempai who trained with Osensei there for ten or twenty years or more. I'm not saying time-served gave them the goods, they just had long windows of opportunity, which is still important. And you allow that information to get branded "modern aikido" without any evidence. Are you assuming a (possibly willful) zero-percent success rate from Osensei in passing on the proper training? You tell others that it is they who have to do research. Why not ask the remaining old sempai yourself, while they're still around?

Carl

Actually, Ueshiba did pass on stuff. The "aikido" greats were all from Uehsiba's Daito ryu teaching days. From that, we know he could pass on the goods. Is there a possibility that some things got passed on in Iwama? I'd think there is a possibility.

However, to define awase like the train example and then state awase is the principle (or "a" principle) of aiki misses the boat completely.

Let me clarify a bit since I now understand where the confusion exists. So, David Alexander stated, "In AIKIDO this is AWASE, which can also be called the principle of AIKI." Notice he used "the", not "a". In fact, the title of his thread also uses "the" not "a".

A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) being identified. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns, is "the".

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Now, I took that as being awase is also aiki. As in, awase aka the principle of aiki.

You should look up the definition of "principle". You are failing both the grammar and vocabulary sections at this point. A principle of something is not "equal to" that thing, whether it is singular or plural.

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

However, either way you look at it, it still isn't correct. The definition of awase given by David Alexander is not equivalent to Ueshiba's aiki. As I said in this thread, Ueshiba stopped Tenryu using the secret of aiki, not awase.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition (awase = principle of Aiki) by replacing it with a superficially similar yet not equivalent proposition (e.g.: the "straw man" that awase is EQUIVALENT to Ueshiba's aiki"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Even if you try to look at awase as one of the principles that make up aiki, it still isn't correct. All through Ueshiba's discourses, there are mentions of what made up aiki and awase was not one of them. Unless you can point to the research where Ueshiba talked about aiki being comprised of awase? I haven't seen it.

"Comprised of" is leaning back towards your "equals" strawman. Awase is a broad term. You do not know how it applies to the training that Alexander Sensei did or Osensei's discourses.
Let's try to find out though...
Let's awase...
Carl

A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) being identified. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns, is "the".

You should look up the definition of "principle". You are failing both the grammar and vocabulary sections at this point. A principle of something is not "equal to" that thing, whether it is singular or plural.

Carl

*sigh* I'm trying to discuss the subject matter and now I get, Let's argue word definitions. Is that really the best argument you want to make about the thread subject?

Ueshiba says that if you do not stand on the Floating Bridge of Heaven, aiki will not come forth. The Floating Bridge of Heaven is also the foundation for take musu aiki. Ueshiba then says that the Floating Bridge of Heaven is the turning of fire and water in a spiral. Fire and water are in and yo. Chris writes at the end that, "the Floating Bridge of Heaven, also known as Heaven-Earth-Man, consists of creating a state within yourself by which you connect opposing forces and express that connection in spirals through the body."

Note that nowhere did we find Ueshiba talking about any of the principles of aiki being like this: "consider trying to stop a train that is coming down the tracks. Standing on the tracks and trying to stop the train by physically overpowering it will not be expected to work. However, running next to the train, jumping aboard, moving to the engineer's compartment, overcoming the engineer and applying the brakes will produce the desired result of stopping the train. This is comparable to AWASE in that no attempt is made to directly oppose power, but control is gained by merging into the power and disabling it."

It's also worth noting that Tohei mentions his view of what Kisshomaru is doing at Tokyo hombu is "the Way of fitting in with another person's Ki". If you reread the view of awase by David Alexander, specifically his train example, it fits near exactly with the supposed interpretation of aiki by Kisshomaru in Tokyo.

http://www.aikidosangenkai.org/blog/...eng-ha-and-aun
Now, we read that Ueshiba stated, "The "Iki" (breath) of Aikido's kokyu-ho winds up in a spiral on the right, winds down in a spiral on the left, and gives rise to the connection between Water ("I") and Fire ("ki")." Opposing forces, contradictory forces. Why do we care? Because Ueshiba stated, "It is said that Aikido is "Standing on the Floating Bridge of Heaven". The Floating Bridge of Heaven is the turning of fire and water bound together. Fire moves water, water is moved by fire. Fire and water are one thing. They turn in a spiral. They are entwined through Ki. That is something that is enacted through the breath ("iki"). This breath ("iki") is Aiki."

Throughout, he talks about the principle of aiki as it being the balance of contradictory forces within oneself.

Aikido Today Magazine; #31 Dec.93/ Jan. 94
Interview of Henry Kono sensei by Virginia Mayhew and Susan Perry.
ATM: When you had conversations like these with O'sensei, what would you talk about?
HK: Well, I would usually ask him why the rest of us couldn't do what he could. there were many other teachers, all doing aikido. But he was doing it differently - doing something differently. His movement was so clean!
ATM: How would O'sensei answer your questions about what he was doing?
HK: He would say that I didn't understand yin and yang [in and yo]. So, now I've made it my life work to study yin and yang. That's what O'sensei told me to do.

Notice that Kono knows that many of the other teachers there were doing something very different. What was Kisshomaru's interpretation? What was Ueshiba's interpretation? Different?

There are numerous Aikido Journal articles that detail out Tenryu's meeting with Ueshiba. Ueshiba was seated, not standing, not moving around. Seated. Tenryu could not push him over. Tenryu was over 6 foot tall and about 240 pounds. A giant compared to Ueshiba. When asked why Tenryu couldn't move him, Ueshiba said it was because he knew the secret of aiki. Seated, not moving around the train that was Tenryu. Instead the train that was Tenryu moved around Ueshiba who was like the Universe.

Part Two

Part of what I learned from Dan at the beginning was to build contradictory forces within myself. Primarily, I started learning up and down (at the same time) with the spine. There was also outward and inward through the hands to/from the spine. Opposing forces with me at the center.

Then, word came back that a student of Ueshiba said this kind of training I was doing was what Ueshiba used to do. No, I'm not going to say who that was. Do the research like I did.

At one point in my aikido career of about 20 years, I was able to train with someone who had been around while Ueshiba was alive. And what did some of that training consist of? Up/down with the spine. Out/in through the arms. Spirals. All from outside Tokyo hombu. There are other students outside of Tokyo who had similar training exercises to what I was doing. I'm sure there's more than what I found.

Ueshiba teaching contradictory forces of up/down in the spine and out/in through the arms. In/yo.

Looking back at the research of Ueshiba talking about aiki being contradictory forces, it's not hard to put it all together. Learning exact exercises from two different sources, Ueshiba (via his student) and Dan (via Daito ryu), regarding contradictory forces managed within oneself while trying to be the center of it all. Then top it off with reading the translations from Chris and having Ueshiba's words hammered home about aiki being opposing forces. And that was just one part. There is more.

Final

Let's go back and reread what awase means to David Alexander, "consider trying to stop a train that is coming down the tracks. Standing on the tracks and trying to stop the train by physically overpowering it will not be expected to work. However, running next to the train, jumping aboard, moving to the engineer's compartment, overcoming the engineer and applying the brakes will produce the desired result of stopping the train. This is comparable to AWASE in that no attempt is made to directly oppose power, but control is gained by merging into the power and disabling it."

Kisshomaru's interpretation = the Way of fitting in with another person's Ki
Ueshiba's interpretation = Contradictory forces in a spiral with you at the center.
David Alexander's awase = Who do you think it sounds like? Does it sound like Ueshiba's definition of any of the principles of aiki?

I appreciate your comments, but I am not really sure you understand what my issue is with Mark and Dan. I have got no beef with what they are doing, what their ideas are, how they train, or their skills. I am just saying, if it's got anything to do with Ueshiba, explain how. I fail to see how going to a seminar with Dan would solve this, unless we spent most of our time going over old documents and pictures, or something like that.

Quote:

David Soroko wrote:

I participated in one of Dan's seminars and thought that the body skills he was teaching were real and interesting. I also think that they aren't related to anything the Founder was doing.

You can have one without the other.

Mark
I was talking with John today about how he was progressing and moving forward, both with his training and his book. We talked some about levels of understanding and the associated levels of training that go with it. If you just break the levels into low, middle, and high the consensus was that you have to have changed body/movement for middle level to do middle level and to have middle level understanding, to even see middle level.....if you are at a lower level you won't see the differences, the movement or have the understanding. .......it is just that way.

As close of friends as John and I am...we talk this stuff several times a week by phone.....he telling me that if I want more from him, middle level and such, I need to put in the time training with him if I want to develop understanding that he has. I have to spent a considerable time working the sole drills to develop the changed body to even be able to do what he does.

With this in mind maybe it is just time to let this go......if no one is listening, don't want to hear, don't see......maybe can't see at this time..don't think this approach is worth the effort....are just plain happy with what they are doing now....just let it go.... we are back to flat world viewing by most.

Most of the participants in the seminar were from Tai Chi background. Early on Dan said that he isn't interested in Aikido that much and his focus is now on MMA. Except for this and a negative remarks about hanmi, he was much less diplomatic there than on this thread, Aikido wasn't mentioned. Some of the things shown contradicted my knowledge (Iwama lineage), some of it was orthogonal to it.

Ultimately, looking at the videos of the the Founder, Saito or Shioda, I don't see them do anything similar to what Dan was doing.

I have a question/theory for you Mark.

If I was to define "Modern Aikido" as the Aikido that came out of the Hombu dojo after the war, would it be true that most/all of Aikido people who consistently train with Dan or invite him to their clubs, trace their lineage to that "Modern Aikido"?

Most of the participants in the seminar were from Tai Chi background. Early on Dan said that he isn't interested in Aikido that much and his focus is now on MMA. Except for this and a negative remarks about hanmi, he was much less diplomatic there than on this thread, Aikido wasn't mentioned. Some of the things shown contradicted my knowledge (Iwama lineage), some of it was orthogonal to it.

Ultimately, looking at the videos of the the Founder, Saito or Shioda, I don't see them do anything similar to what Dan was doing.

I have a question/theory for you Mark.

If I was to define "Modern Aikido" as the Aikido that came out of the Hombu dojo after the war, would it be true that most/all of Aikido people who consistently train with Dan or invite him to their clubs, trace their lineage to that "Modern Aikido"?

Well....all down to personal experiences really. I'm one of those people who's had Dan to their club. I'll suggest that he is a 'colourful larger than life' personality....and thank god for that, It would be such a boring world if we were all the same. He spoke as he found things...yes he wasn't trying to be diplomatic....just open and true to his experiences. Not really here to talk about personalities though....as Dan consistently says - Its not about him - its about the work.

I never heard Dan say negative things about the founder - instead many times he refered to his amazing skills.

What he consistently argued is that these skills pre-date Ueshiba. I've no issue with that.

He did put up an arguement against traditional hanmi.....supported by reasoned justification. I had no issue with it and certainly won't be getting my knickers in a twist over it.

In the whole he argues for Aiki 'within me, before thee and me' ...aiki power generated and manipulated by a carefully trained body. He provides a structure for training that body and in time that structure can then be deployed freely to waza.....to give practice that has power instead of an empty form.

Perhaps one lesson isn't enough to appreciate what Dan has to offer....but for me there was an instance connection with the teachings of my Aikido inspiration. Perhaps videos aren't always the best source of information..not really interested in debating it either as I'm just happy to focus on my own training.

For what its worth and because of the question on 'modern Aikido'....much of my training was with Pierre Chassang...student of Tadashi abe in 1952/3 and 1961.

Also student of Matsuharu Nakazano & Masamichi Noro and from 1965 student of Nobuyoshi Tamura Shihan.

Is this modern Aikido or not? I have no interest in the labelling of others really but I do know Pierres opinion..

Pierre very much argues againt what he saw as 'modern Aikido'....often refering to conversations with Master Arikawa where modern 'aikido' was referred to as Budo Sportif...and not considered the real deal.

For Pierre, Aikido was sourced in the hara, was linked to the concept of 'heaven earth man', was built around man being a cross and involved reprogramming the brain to respond with Aiki.

Even down to some of Dans walking exercises...Pierre told us of lessons in his past where they just walked up and down the mat - training to move from centre.

Finally. Spiral energy and spiral movement. These were the cornerstone of practice with Pierre.

I definitely haven't done hm full justice in those few words - but I don't see these as similar to what Dan is doing - I see them as exactly in line with the work..

Dan just 'mines' in to a new level, its the same work only even deeper. Once people get over the shock that Dan can actually show and teach this stuff, and stop being insulted on behalf of their instructors then people will realise that theres no real conflict here - just a gateway to a resource that can only improve the Aikido that we all practice.

So while Dans stuff is already in Aikido....he's uncovering things and making obvious previously hidden things that I just didn't get. So when people here are saying about Dans stuff 'we are already doing that'....Its like a sunday morning jogger claiming to have equivalent skills to Usain Bolt !

Anyway - As a caveat I'll say my work with Dan is only just starting - 18 months in after 20 years of Aikido and 8 of jujitsu. Already significant progress for me and am very happy that I've found someone that can help me that will hopefully be around for many years to come. I'll also say that I rarely post these days....there is so much chaff here and most people are so fixed in their ideas that they just aren't prepared to listen.

But FWIW...this is the experience and thoughts of just 1 peson that has hosted Dan.

Regards

D

PS. @Joe Curran - No Dan didn't meet Mike although he met a few of his instructors as well as me. Mike was hobnobbing in Singapore with his wife who was Fencing in some international competition.

I've no real interest in what someone who hasn't trained with someone else thinks of them or cares to classify them as.

I know what I've experienced with a multitude of seniors over the year - and I know who in my opinion stands out.

I've just chipped in to say how much Dans course resonated with me and was in my opinion in line with the teachings of Pierre which I consider myself very fortunate to have received, I've only done this because certainly in the UK I'm the only Aikido person to host Dan to date so am in a unique position. (Alex Ferreras does lurk but he's CMA).

Regarding the definition supplied on modern Aikido I actually think Aikido v Modern Aikido is more about content rather than geograpic location or even pre/post war. If you check with Henry Ellis you'll see that Pierre came across with Abbe Sensei when Aikido first came to UK. If training after the war makes it 'modern' Aikido then since this was 1952 .....all Aikido in the UK would be modern Aikido.

This isn't my view of course...but everyone is entitled to their own view and I'll not be losing any sleep over such a classification.

I've no real interest in what someone who hasn't trained with someone else thinks of them or cares to classify them as.

I know what I've experienced with a multitude of seniors over the year - and I know who in my opinion stands out.

I've just chipped in to say how much Dans course resonated with me and was in my opinion in line with the teachings of Pierre which I consider myself very fortunate to have received, I've only done this because certainly in the UK I'm the only Aikido person to host Dan to date so am in a unique position. (Alex Ferreras does lurk but he's CMA).

Regarding the definition supplied on modern Aikido I actually think Aikido v Modern Aikido is more about content rather than geograpic location or even pre/post war. If you check with Henry Ellis you'll see that Pierre came across with Abbe Sensei when Aikido first came to UK. If training after the war makes it 'modern' Aikido then since this was 1952 .....all Aikido in the UK would be modern Aikido.

This isn't my view of course...but everyone is entitled to their own view and I'll not be losing any sleep over such a classification.

Cheers

D.

ps. Were you on the 1st course in London? glasses?

If you haven't read "Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?" already, give it a shot. It is much more reasonable then "someone who hasn't trained with someone else thinks of them or cares to classify them as."
Here is the link again: http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2011/1...tanley-pranin/

One other significant correlation for this - Pierre attributes the 'Eureka moment' of his understanding of Aikido not to his japanese teachers ..but to Chinese scholars quoting Tchang Sai for instance "Everything in the universe is made of Qi" and from the Ling Tchou (a book on medicine) "the living being must not be considered as matter animated by the spirit, it is energy that directs matter, itself a form of energy, towards the phenomum of life"

Heavy stuff...but still consistent with the source of Dans teachings that Aiki predates O'sensei.

If you haven't read "Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?" already, give it a shot. It is much more reasonable then "someone who hasn't trained with someone else thinks of them or cares to classify them as."
Here is the link again: http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2011/1...tanley-pranin/

Yes - I've read it.

I'm not being unreasonable though - I'm not here to debate - I never was - I'm just stating that my view is coloured by hands on experience with Pierre, with Dan and with many other senior Aikido players having chipped in because the question posed to Mark essentially referred to someone in my current position.

While I'm here - I think its a good article - but I don't think its a one size fits all. Not all aikido students take their references from a single strand, my opinion is that the Aikido of some post war students has been augmented by research above and beyond that of their instructors ...leading them back towards the source. But thats just my opinion.

I leave classification to the debaters here and return to sitting in the viewing gallery - my posts were to give a view from someone that fits the category in your question to Mark, other than that I really have no dog in this fight and am only interested in training that takes me in the direction I believe is correct.

Right now this runs in the same course as the lessons I gratefully receive from Dan.

Ultimately, looking at the videos of the the Founder, Saito or Shioda, I don't see them do anything similar to what Dan was doing.

Having never met Dan, I have no skin in the game. What exactly do you see as being different from what he is doing, compared to the above people? I think it might be helpful for people that are interested in meeting him.

*sigh* I'm trying to discuss the subject matter and now I get, Let's argue word definitions. Is that really the best argument you want to make about the thread subject?

There is no argument for me to want over word definition.

Look at the previous posts in the thread. Now look at the post at the beginning. In that sentence "the post at the beginning" refers to one of many posts. "Principle" does not mean "equal". 2 + 2 is not the principle of 4. It's not rocket science. Don't pretend this is something that even could be argued.

And you are not trying to discuss anything. You started with two conclusions and have told us how they are right over and over without any evidence.

1. You were wrong about Aikido not having influence from other arts. One example of evidence I provided was from was Stanley Pranin - you have done nothing to refute it and asked no questions about it. Were you even interested in discussing this?

2. You were wrong about David Alexander saying Awase = Aiki and your attempt to redefine the English language to cover your mistake isn't going to hide it. Nor is repeating the abstract example of the train and just saying it's modern aikido. Instead of just telling us it isn't Aiki, you could ask questions and have people give all kinds of testimony from actually training in Iwama. Then, you could compare notes, and reach the conclusion at the end (maybe even the same one - only informed).

Before you made your original post, you could have PMed Alexander Sensei and asked him what he meant by awase. Your original post could have been "I'm interested to know what the concept of awase is in Iwama? How does it feature in actual practice? I read that Aikido was influenced by arts other than Daito Ryu. Could anyone give me some examples of how... etc" You have great resources at your fingertips to find out what you want to know.

"This is comparable to AWASE in that no attempt is made to directly oppose power, but control is gained by merging into the power and disabling it."

Kisshomaru's interpretation = the Way of fitting in with another person's Ki
Ueshiba's interpretation = Contradictory forces in a spiral with you at the center.
David Alexander's awase = Who do you think it sounds like? Does it sound like Ueshiba's definition of any of the principles of aiki?

Actually, this really sounds like what someone above in the thread - Chris Li maybe - said, that awase is a result of aiki. Maybe you would prefer if David Alexander had described the situation as the incoming force running into the body with in and yo balanced within, and the inbound force loses control and disables itself?

Personally I prefer imagery that is more volitional. David Alexander's works better for me.

Thanks for the explication, btw. It is obviously very important for you to feel validated that what you are doing is exactly what Osensei was doing.

When all logic, research, evidence, and truth fails, talk about character or belabor the format.

So far, I have, on Aikiweb, provided hundreds to over a thousand posts of research and explanations and direct experiences in correlating Ueshiba's aikido against other aikido.

Detractors of that so far have provided only that I am wrong, that I don't know, that I have no pedigree, that the foundation of the wording was in error, and that the format of the debate should be changed, that I must be psychologically impaired, that one person who trained with a student of Ueshiba trumps all other people who either trained with Ueshiba or trained with students of Ueshiba, that, well, pretty much everything except providing solid research and experiences debating the subject matter.

Gary, you were right. But, it was never about changing the minds of a few, rather it was about putting information out there for the audience at large so that they can see the other side. Multiple meanings of that is intended.

Anyway, I'm done. The information is there and has not been refuted. A point to keep in mind when reading replies that are directed everywhere but there.

Having never met Dan, I have no skin in the game. What exactly do you see as being different from what he is doing, compared to the above people? I think it might be helpful for people that are interested in meeting him.

The short and somewhat useless answer is "everything". The longer answer is that in the seminar no waza has been taught so when I say everything is different, I mean that I don't see how the waza demonstrated
in the video arises or is related to the drills from the seminar. I have asked similar questions on this thread:

The short and somewhat useless answer is "everything". The longer answer is that in the seminar no waza has been taught so when I say everything is different, I mean that I don't see how the waza demonstrated
in the video arises or is related to the drills from the seminar. I have asked similar questions on this thread:

You honestly don't see how what is shown in the video of the first link you posted above matches up with anything Dan did in his seminar? O'sensei having a guy push on him, not moving, not turning away, absorbing their strength into his body until he decides to throw them away. Later in the vid he's letting guys push into his hip, absorbing it and bouncing them away. You consider that waza?

You honestly don't see how what is shown in the video of the first link you posted above matches up with anything Dan did in his seminar? O'sensei having a guy push on him, not moving, not turning away, absorbing their strength into his body until he decides to throw them away. Later in the vid he's letting guys push into his hip, absorbing it and bouncing them away. You consider that waza?

yes that's correct. You relegate those examples as "the minority", but if you view O'sensei's waza as the highest level of aikido and people have been doing that waza for decades without reaching or really even coming close to his skill level, maybe it's time to figure out how he's doing those other things, because it's pretty clear that waza doesn't get you that. I think that's the base argument that has been made in relation to these IS/IP skills from the get go.

The short and somewhat useless answer is "everything". The longer answer is that in the seminar no waza has been taught so when I say everything is different, I mean that I don't see how the waza demonstrated
in the video arises or is related to the drills from the seminar. I have asked similar questions on this thread:

I've never met Dan, though I have met up with people who have, so any information I have on what he teaches is second hand. I believe he has taught more aikido-centric seminars, so perhaps with that audience makeup, it might be more apparent? I assume he probably would say that you need to apply the principle of whatever he worked on in push-tests, strikes etc to your aikido practice, and that you could presumably utilize it in pre-scripted waza as a limited means by which to develop it, even if waza itself isn't the ultimate goal.

I know for myself, as I study a number of arts, that attending IS seminars, the drills and focus did not look immediately applicable, to my kendo/iaido practice, nor to ground fighting, since we never quite did anything that replicated the motions of cutting, nor submissions. That being said, the fact that people got unbalanced on contact, was rather attractive and seemed unlike what I'd seen which was the result of timing, pain compliance, really good form or collusion. Then its up to one's self to figure out once they understand the principle, and see if the same movement is present in certain people who are acknowledged to "have" it and how to rewire how you move yourself..

Obviously, having never met nor seen Dan, I'm in no position to judge if he is doing what Ueshiba is doing, but I think its pretty clear that he is not advocating the approach most people have to martial arts. I think a question to ask those who have had experience with Ueshiba is to ask, them if he achieved what he did through superior technique and timing or if there was something else they seemed to think was in action (whether it was his religious experiences or something else) and perhaps use that as a measuring stick.

When all logic, research, evidence, and truth fails, talk about character or belabor the format.

So far, I have, on Aikiweb, provided hundreds to over a thousand posts of research and explanations and direct experiences in correlating Ueshiba's aikido against other aikido.

Detractors of that so far have provided only that I am wrong, that I don't know, that I have no pedigree, that the foundation of the wording was in error, and that the format of the debate should be changed, that I must be psychologically impaired, that one person who trained with a student of Ueshiba trumps all other people who either trained with Ueshiba or trained with students of Ueshiba, that, well, pretty much everything except providing solid research and experiences debating the subject matter.

Gary, you were right. But, it was never about changing the minds of a few, rather it was about putting information out there for the audience at large so that they can see the other side. Multiple meanings of that is intended.

Anyway, I'm done. The information is there and has not been refuted. A point to keep in mind when reading replies that are directed everywhere but there.

Mark

Mark,

With all due respect, it seems that you misunderstand the nature of the counter-arguments you claim to have addressed.

One could fairly credit you with having made an interesting circumstantial case on the basis of carefully selected quotes organized on the basis of a number of inferences you have made from your personal training experiences.That is something very different from your apparent belief that you have made a rock-solid case based on hard evidence. You find your argument compelling. Fine. That still doesn't make it rock-solid.

What I mean by "hard evidence" is a confirmation of your case by an individual who was familiar with Ueshiba's practices -- as both a private individual and as a semi-private or public teacher/exemplar of his art, and/or by textual evidence with a clear provenance.

One can entirely accept the argument that any number of people who were students of students of Morihei Ueshiba, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, or Horikawa Kodo, or (fill in the blank) find something valuable in the mode of practice you favor without accepting the assertion that either the mode (or precise goal) of your practice is identical to that of Morihei Ueshiba.

In a koryu context, if a school had "lost" such material from its core curriculum (let's call that the "honden") and subsequently "re-imported" the material from some other school that had somehow gotten hold of and maintained that body of instruction, unless there was clear documentation (which requires either unequivocal textual evidence or confirmation by someone familiar with the original material as-taught, or both) that each and every piece of the re-imported material was identical in sequence and detail the original, the material would have to be reclassified as "outside transmission" or "revived transmission." And the final decision would rest with an individual who was appropriately trained and licensed to do so. It would would never be treated as part of the core teachings faithfully transmitted through an unbroken sequence of exponents.

It's not a matter of whether the material is good stuff, is related in some significant part to some good stuff that was part of the school three-quarters of a century or a century ago, or if the people working the material are good people.

It's a matter of whether there is sufficient documentary evidence and direct first hand knowledge to state, unequivocally with no missing links in the chain of argument requiring supposition or inference, that "this" is exactly "that," whatever this and that may be.

Yes, you can say (not unreasonably) that there's no way anyone can know whether or not "this" is good stuff, or useful stuff, without experiencing it. That makes perfect sense. But that is a fundamentally different assertion than the claim that "this IP/IS practice,the aiki body it develops, and whatever arises from that is nothing more or less than Ueshiba's aiki."

Frankly, the only way I see to closer to proving or disproving that claim is for some intrepid researchers currently in Japan to follow up some of the research suggestions Ellis has repeatedly made. There are individuals still alive and related schools extant which might be able to provide further evidence to confirm your informed speculations.

But absent such evidence, your assertions remain informed speculations. While there is value in informed speculation, there is a valid distinction between informed speculation and proven fact. My sense is that the frustration of your interlocutors turns directly on what they see as your (relentless) refusal to acknowledge that this is a meaningful distinction.

None of this goes to the additional questions of whether or not Ueshiba's training methods, philosophical views, religious views and practices, political or soteriological goals changed over time, or to the question of whether what attracts people to the art is simply the fundamental physical ability to manifest rootedness, and generate uncommon power by which the movement of others might be directed, or some other, perhaps less tangible feature. My experience is that most aikido practitioners have some measure of both, but the proportion varies widely from individual to individual and the spectrum is a broad one. Very few are interesting in a strictly physical approach, even a highly nuanced physical approach like those found in the various IP/IS models available.

To return this to the OP. "Awase" can be accomplished any number of ways. Would "aiki" as a distinct principle be useful in accomplishing "awase?" Sure. Is it necessary? Not remotely. Is it desirable? De gustibus non est disputadam!

If you don't like what's on the menu, there's no need to go in the restaurant and no need to fuss at the people who do like what's on the menu. It may be quite enough to say (as F. Scott Fitzgerald once paraphrased Lincoln) : "If you like this sort of thing, this, possibly, is the sort of thing you'll like."

That formulation is well within the Confucian edict "To go too far is as bad as to fall short."

Mindful that this guidance is well within the broad sweep of traditional East Asian shared culture with which Ueshiba M. was raised and to which he was devoted, yet fearful that it is already far too late in this reply to even say such a thing, I will close in the hope that all of the above sparks more light than heat.

When all logic, research, evidence, and truth fails, talk about character or belabor the format.

So far, I have, on Aikiweb, provided hundreds to over a thousand posts of research and explanations and direct experiences in correlating Ueshiba's aikido against other aikido.

Detractors of that so far have provided only that I am wrong, that I don't know, that I have no pedigree, that the foundation of the wording was in error, and that the format of the debate should be changed, that I must be psychologically impaired, that one person who trained with a student of Ueshiba trumps all other people who either trained with Ueshiba or trained with students of Ueshiba, that, well, pretty much everything except providing solid research and experiences debating the subject matter.

Gary, you were right. But, it was never about changing the minds of a few, rather it was about putting information out there for the audience at large so that they can see the other side. Multiple meanings of that is intended.

Anyway, I'm done. The information is there and has not been refuted. A point to keep in mind when reading replies that are directed everywhere but there.

Mark

Mark,

With all due respect, it seems that you misunderstand the nature of the counter-arguments you claim to have addressed.

One could fairly credit you with having made an interesting circumstantial case on the basis of carefully selected quotes organized on the basis of a number of inferences you have made from your personal training experiences.That is something very different from your apparent belief that you have made a rock-solid case based on hard evidence. You find your argument compelling. Fine. That still doesn't make it rock-solid.

What I mean by "hard evidence" is a confirmation of your case by an individual who was familiar with Ueshiba's practices -- as both a private individual and as a semi-private or public teacher/exemplar of his art, and/or by textual evidence with a clear provenance.

One can entirely accept the argument that any number of people who were students of students of Morihei Ueshiba, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, or Horikawa Kodo, or (fill in the blank) find something valuable in the mode of practice you favor without accepting the assertion that either the mode (or precise goal) of your practice is identical to that of Morihei Ueshiba.

In a koryu context, if a school had "lost" such material from its core curriculum (let's call that the "honden") and subsequently "re-imported" the material from some other school that had somehow gotten hold of and maintained that body of instruction, unless there was clear documentation (which requires either unequivocal textual evidence or confirmation by someone familiar with the original material as-taught, or both) that each and every piece of the re-imported material was identical in sequence and detail the original, the material would have to be reclassified as "outside transmission" or "revived transmission." And the final decision would rest with an individual who was appropriately trained and licensed to do so. It would would never be treated as part of the core teachings faithfully transmitted through an unbroken sequence of exponents.

It's not a matter of whether the material is good stuff, is related in some significant part to some good stuff that was part of the school three-quarters of a century or a century ago, or if the people working the material are good people.

It's a matter of whether there is sufficient documentary evidence and direct first hand knowledge to state, unequivocally with no missing links in the chain of argument requiring supposition or inference, that "this" is exactly "that," whatever this and that may be.

Yes, you can say (not unreasonably) that there's no way anyone can know whether or not "this" is good stuff, or useful stuff, without experiencing it. That makes perfect sense. But that is a fundamentally different assertion than the claim that "this IP/IS practice,the aiki body it develops, and whatever arises from that is nothing more or less than Ueshiba's aiki."

Frankly, the only way I see to closer to proving or disproving that claim is for some intrepid researchers currently in Japan to follow up some of the research suggestions Ellis has repeatedly made. There are individuals still alive and related schools extant which might be able to provide further evidence to confirm your informed speculations.

But absent such evidence, your assertions remain informed speculations. While there is value in informed speculation, there is a valid distinction between informed speculation and proven fact. My sense is that the frustration of your interlocutors turns directly on what they see as your (relentless) refusal to acknowledge that this is a meaningful distinction.

None of this goes to the additional questions of whether or not Ueshiba's training methods, philosophical views, religious views and practices, political or soteriological goals changed over time, or to the question of whether what attracts people to the art is simply the fundamental physical ability to manifest rootedness, and generate uncommon power by which the movement of others might be directed, or some other, perhaps less tangible feature. My experience is that most aikido practitioners have some measure of both, but the proportion varies widely from individual to individual and the spectrum is a broad one. Very few are interesting in a strictly physical approach, even a highly nuanced physical approach like those found in the various IP/IS models available.

To return this to the OP. "Awase" can be accomplished any number of ways. Would "aiki" as a distinct principle be useful in accomplishing "awase?" Sure. Is it necessary? Not remotely. Is it desirable? De gustibus non est disputadam!

If you don't like what's on the menu, there's no need to go in the restaurant and no need to fuss at the people who do like what's on the menu. It may be quite enough to say (as F. Scott Fitzgerald once paraphrased Lincoln) : "If you like this sort of thing, this, possibly, is the sort of thing you'll like."

That formulation is well within the Confucian edict "To go too far is as bad as to fall short."

Mindful that this guidance is well within the broad sweep of traditional East Asian shared culture with which Ueshiba M. was raised and to which he was devoted, yet fearful that it is already far too late in this reply to even say such a thing, I will close in the hope that all of the above sparks more light than heat.